The new editor/publisher, Louie Seesz, is off to an inauspicious start. First the Guest Column change. Now this… The article printed in the November 19, 2005, Northfield News had a PATENTLY FALSE STATEMENT, as well as some incorrect quotes and conflations. The biggest problem is in the secondary headline, where the News FALSELY stated:

Judge deems suit against county as “frivolous.”

Here’s a link to the article. Nope, can’t link to it because it’s not all there in the online version.

Here’s a link to the Order: Download file

It’s clear — this Order is dismissing the suit on “jurisdictional” issues, it was not dismissed as frivolous, and it was not dismissed with prejudice. This case has not been decided on the merits.

The reporter I spoke with said he had the Order — if so, what yahoo wrote this headline?

And for the record, I did not say that it was dismissed because a reply was not filed! I said that the judge had stated in the Order that the Reply had not been filed until the morning of the hearing, that the statement in the Order was not true, and I have the fax receipt and a cancelled check to prove it!

I don’t understand why Reuvers would be saying on Tuesday that RCLUA “planned” to refile when it very clearly had been served, filed, served on the AG’s Office, MPCA and published in the paper the week prior. He got a copy of the Summons and Complaint, and I sent him an affidavit of Service on the AG’s office and MPCA (Affidavit from Faribault Daily News hasn’t been received yet). It’s old news, nothing “planned” about it, it’s real. But he can say whatever he wants. The article states “He says it is a little tiring to have to deal with the same issue twice.” This hasn’t been addressed on the merits once, so we have yet to see how they deal with it on the merits!

Here’s what Reuver’s has sent — Download file

My legal opinion? Here’s my response: Download file

That’s legalese for “WHAT A LOAD!”

And then, back to the article, there’s Gordon Kelly, the guy who loves to slam members of the public for participating in public hearings and asking questions, who joins in the after hearing Planning Commission discussion in favor of calling the sheriff on me for passing out blank forms for public comment on the AUAR, it’s just to funny to hear him talk of this suit damaging the county’s reputation! Damaging the county’s reputation? After the actions of the Planning Commission and County Board, how could the county’s reputation on these issues get any worse — but what else can they say when confronted with the truth of their multiple violations of environmental rules? Violation of environmental rules is not an isolated thing, but a pattern of behavior, and one that must be corrected. How to correct it? How to hold them accountable? Seems to me the best way is to require they get environmental training so they can’t claim not to know the state’s Rules — and that’s what we’re asking for in this suit. Gordon Kelly states that “It was pointed out to us that Rice County is following the environmental rules.” Earth to Mars, reread that Order, the part quoted in the paragraph below your statement in the Northfield News article, which says:

Although this lawsuit is dismissed, the Court notes that the lawsuit does provide Rice County with an opportunity to fully review whether its environmental review practices are fully in compliance with environmental rules and regulations.

We’re asking for education and training regarding environmental review and rules. Will somebody please explain why the County finds the education and training regarding environmental review and rules so onerous?

This case has not been addressed on its merits, and it will be. It’s been refiled, the “jurisdictional” issues are remedied, and we’re going forward.

Hopefully the Northfield News will have a greater understanding and command of the English langage and will exercise their word processor and printing press with more accuracy.

Leave a Reply